Why Can't American Socialists Come up with a Plan to End Poverty

Yeah, because constantly cutting social programs, slashing education funding, and privatizing public services (while jacking up their prices) somehow
decreases poverty, right? Oh yeah, and let's not forget shifting the tax burden away from wealthy corporations and wealthy individuals, instead
replacing those taxes with flat income taxes or sales taxes which disproportionately affect the poor and working class.

Actual socialist policies are the opposite of those policies and would reduce the poverty that's increased by those policies.

As another poster has already stated this dream of an idea doesn't hold very much water.

It's not really hard to do the math these days now that we all have calculators on our phones!

25,000 dollars a year to 300 million people works out to 7 and a half trillion a year. Just about half of the total output of our economy. About seven
times the current total tax revenue on income now.

They would flip when you told them all their regular sugar was being taken away for this new thing. And when they learned they would have to pay
normal prices for all their rent and utilities and stuff, they would absolutely flip. They're losing all their "free" stuff, see? Even if they would
ultimately get more cash in hand, they'd still flip for getting the freebies.

Oh, they'd want the cash, but they'd also want to keep every single program they already have too.

I think you're generalizing a bit, not everyone on welfare wants to be where they are. I'd be willing to bet a good portion of them WANT to pay their
own way instead of being dependent on someone or something else.

But since we're all crapping on socialism, let's get rid of the lottery. Did you buy a ticket? If so, you participated in socialism and gave someone
free money, gave them everything they could ever want without ever having to do anything more than spend $2 and get lucky. Not only did you comply in
giving someone everything for nothing, you were hoping you were the one to get it!

I'm pleasantly surprised about your thread Xuenchen!
I like the idea of basic income a lot and you bring good points and good numbers that seem to work on paper. I guess with a couple adjustments I'm
sure it could work.

I really believe in basic income as it limits the homeless, people that have to resort to crime to survive and gives a chance for people to work
towards a better life instead of being FORCED in an almost inescapable routine. More people would work in what they like and what they are good
at...eventually, productivity would be higher and more stable. It's not good news for power hungry psychopaths but it's a good step towards happiness
of the majority.

I am going to say this, yet again, in the hopes that people understand it.

There is not an American walking the world, who understands what socialism is, what it looks like, or what it feels like to live under. What is more,
none of the politicians there are event remotely socialist, certainly not as socialist as they ought to be. By the standards that matter (European
ones of course) the best you have in the States, is centrists, and the only other options are various shades of hideous hyper capitalist and science
deniers.

America would cough up its spleen if it ever encountered a real socialist, and trust me, as much as people complain about Obama, and are concerned
about Sanders, they do not fit the bill.

These days we all know banks create money (credit) out of thin air so if they can do it, so can govt by using the exact same method the banks use.
This means they can create all the money required provide:

an income for everyone.
a home for everyone
health care for everyone
education for everyone

In the 1970's when I was young they used to have programs on TV where talked about the future need to provide an income for everyone because of ever
increasing automation and its effects on employment.

Of course this was opposed on the basis that automation would create more jobs than than it eliminated but also of course, this claim was never
proven; or even had any hard evidence submitted to suggest that the claim was true.

While automation is not the sole cause of high unemployment rates of today as job exporting though transporting manufacturing to the 3rd world
countries has exacerbated the situation, it is never the less apparent that as robots take on more and more human capability, its ever more likely
that robots will put most of us out work in the not to distant future.

However this is not important, what is, is that govt can create money (credit) just like banks do and provide all the things the economy needs if they
had the balls to do it.

Most govts don't want to do this anyway because their owners will not let them. Others want to just eliminate welfare for individuals and move it the
corporate sector.

I believe the intention here is the 25k would more commonly be a supplement income. But 25k is reasonable to live on with roommates I suspect.

This system would also negate to some degree...abuse of Medicare and SS...

I kinda like the direction of this proposal. My family would be far better off when I retire with my wife and I in charge of investing and saving the
giant chunk of my income our crooked government extracts every 2 weeks.

How would this plan/system negate/reduce the incidence of moral hazard in Medicare?

I am going to say this, yet again, in the hopes that people understand it.

There is not an American walking the world, who understands what socialism is, what it looks like, or what it feels like to live under. What is more,
none of the politicians there are event remotely socialist, certainly not as socialist as they ought to be. By the standards that matter (European
ones of course) the best you have in the States, is centrists, and the only other options are various shades of hideous hyper capitalist and science
deniers.

America would cough up its spleen if it ever encountered a real socialist, and trust me, as much as people complain about Obama, and are concerned
about Sanders, they do not fit the bill.

I commented on an earlier post (different thread) of yours, I am going to say this again, well said. The 'War on Poverty' is the closest policy
doctorine born of the USA to resemble socialism. For all the 'sky-is-falling' rhetoric concerning Obamacare as socialism, it's quite amusing to know
its a capitalistic mechanism the entire legislation hinges upon.

And you're correct: Americans have nary an encounter with a true-blue socialist at the highest orders of civic service.

Why did the richest in society need to be bailed out by the tax payer in the bailouts of 2008, seeing the biggest redistribution of wealth in human
history, from tax payer to financial institutions, from bottom to top. Surely a failure of capitalism to control itself and the greed that controls
the flow of capital

originally posted by: woodwardjnr
Why did the richest in society need to be bailed out by the tax payer in the bailouts of 2008, seeing the biggest redistribution of wealth in human
history, from tax payer to financial institutions, from bottom to top. Surely a failure of capitalism to control itself and the greed that controls
the flow of capital

Capitlism wasnt left to control itself.

Bankers knew they would get there politicans freinds to bail them out.

If they had been left to fail (which under free market they should of )then the next set of bankers would have been a lot more carefull on what they
did with there money and people a lot smarter were they invested as they would know there was no secound chance.

This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.